Houston Police Chief Wants Cameras in Homes 804
An anonymous reader writes "In one of the most blatant and frightening statements made on privacy, the Associated Press reports that Houston's police chief wants surveillance cameras in apartment buildings and even private homes. Chief Harold Hurtt wants building permits to require cameras in shopping malls and large apartment complexes. He also wants them in private homes if the homeowner has called the police repeatedly. So, if you're in Houston, don't call the cops too much, or they might install a camera the next time they show up. And what does Hurtt have to say about privacy concerns? 'I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?'"
By counter-example (Score:5, Interesting)
Try telling that to Shi Tao http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0909/p01s03-woap.ht
Anyway, doesn't the fourth amendment protect against unreasonable search and seizure? I'm pretty sure this would count as an unreasonable search.
Re:I have the perfect place for that new bookshelf (Score:3, Interesting)
1984, George Orwell
Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
Terrorism 101: A How-To Guide, Anonymous
The Armchair Anarchist's Almanac, Mike Harding
Re:Big Brothers, Big Sisters (Score:2, Interesting)
I would even go a step further and say that this is a legitimate lifestyle choice for some people. If they wish to subject themselves to constant surveilance, and they believe that some sort of monitoring makes them safer, they should feel free to live that way, so long as they don't wish to force their way on others...
Perhaps a small community of people who felt they were truly guiltless could volunteer to publicly live the disciplined lives such an endeavor would require of them, as a demonstration of what human beings could be capable of?
I work with law enforcement... (Score:5, Interesting)
People have NO IDEA the type of assholes cops have to deal with.
Re:Good god (Score:4, Interesting)
Then fire the dumbass. Some people just don't understand that crap will not be tolerated.
Our country was not founded on this crap. Hell, if anyone reads the writing of our Founding Fathers, Documents such as the Constitution and the Declaration of Independance, they might just learn we're taught to overthrow the government when they abuse the people. If this crap goes unchecked then what alternative do we have?
I know it sounds bad but then again, it IS their words and hope we protect the country from idiots like him.
Reply, from the Best.Essay.Ever on privacy rights (Score:5, Interesting)
"If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free..."
"...If someone intrudes on our privacy - by peering into our home, going through the personal things in our office desk, reading over our shoulder on a bus or airplane, or eavesdropping on our conversation - we feel uncomfortable, even violated.
Imagine, then, how we will feel if it becomes routine for bureaucrats, police officers and other agents of the state to paw through all the details of our lives: where and when we travel, and with whom; who are the friends and acquaintances with whom we have telephone conversations or e-mail correspondence; what we are interested in reading or researching; where we like to go and what we like to do.
A popular response is: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."
By that reasoning, of course, we shouldn't mind if the police were free to come into our homes at any time just to look around, if all our telephone conversations were monitored, if all our mail were read, if all the protections developed over centuries were swept away. It's only a difference of degree from the intrusions already being implemented or considered.
The truth is that we all do have something to hide, not because it's criminal or even shameful, but simply because it's private. We carefully calibrate what we reveal about ourselves to others. Most of us are only willing to have a few things known about us by a stranger, more by an acquaintance, and the most by a very close friend or a romantic partner. The right not to be known against our will - indeed, the right to be anonymous except when we choose to identify ourselves - is at the very core of human dignity, autonomy and freedom.
If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy.
But there also will be tangible, specific harm.
The more information government compiles about us, the more of it will be wrong. That's simply a fact of life. ...But if our privacy becomes ever more systematically invaded by the state for purposes of assessing our behavior and making judgments about us, wrong information and misinterpretations will have potential consequences.
If information that is actually about someone else is wrongly applied to us, if wrong facts make it appear that we've done things we haven't, if perfectly innocent behavior is misinterpreted as suspicious because authorities don't know our reasons or our circumstances, we will be at risk of finding ourselves in trouble in a society where everyone is regarded as a suspect. By the time we clear our names and establish our innocence, we may have suffered irreparable financial or social harm... [go ahead, read the rest [privcom.gc.ca], its well-worth it.]
Wrong, according to whom? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong, according to whom? You? The mormon manning the camera who thinks drinking is against God's law? The Jewish officer next to the Mormon who has a problem with my delight in cooking pork?
Everybody sees the world through their own lenses of right and wrong. If I am being observed by somoene with a radically different belief structure than my own, it stands to reason that in their eyes I very well may be doing something wrong. It is completely the right decision to want to hide my behaviors from such people, allowing them to navigate through the world with their own peculiar perceptions without slapping their personal prejudices against me.
We do not live in a homogenous society. We live in a society of great diversity where people are offended on a reasonably consistent basis by the behavior of others in society. Offense and prejudice breed harassment and worse. It is absolutely critical that people hide their personal lives from each other, and especially those who have the authority to act on their prejudices. Anyone who thinks differently - well, those are the ones who have the most dangerous prejudices of all - the ones who think they have the authority and RIGHT to force their view of the world on others.
Has it ever occured to anyone... (Score:3, Interesting)
He's just taking his job seriously (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the job of the military to keep us safe from other countries. Good Generals therefore tell politians about the dangers of terrorism and spys and how we should kill everyone else just in case they are a threat to national security, and reduce the freedom of foreign nationals whilst they are in the country.. It's their job.
Its the job of the police to keep us safe from each other. Good Policeman, who are listened to by politians, say that the only way we can be kept safe from each other, is if our freeedoms are reduced and we are watched constantly. It's his job.
The real problem is the politions. Its their job to up hold our freedoms. If they listen to the experts, and let them 'do they're job', then they're not doing their job - and they're the ones who are in charge - this is a constitutional republic after all.
Never ask a barber if you need a haircut. He's always going to say "Yes". (I'm too tired t spell check)
Re:Reply, from the Best.Essay.Ever on privacy righ (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, moving into a small town or other community that has not had a lot of population turnover is the same way. Everyone knows everyone else's business. If you aren't used to that, or just happen to not engage the folk of the town, speculation at some point turns into "fact" (perception == reality), and the next thing you know, you're defending yourself, either in the social forum, or, more bizarrely, in a criminal forum, all because you're Not From Araound Haeah.
Oral sex et al-Do you know if you're a criminal? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem I have with the whole "if you have nothing to hide..." argument is that it can be really hard to even know when/if you are doing something illegal! For a variety of reasons:
People have a hard time separating their personal judgement from what is law
A prime example is our history of sodomy law [wikipedia.org]. All it takes is one deeply religious person in power who is unable or unwilling to separate church from state before you have a problem.
From the current Florida lawbooks: [state.fl.us]
Are you living in Florida with your unmarried girlfriend or boyfriend right now? (Oh wait, this is Slashdot
People misinterpret things, especially when they don't understand
What happens when big brother misinterprets your repeated login attempts because you forgot your password as attempted illegal entry into a computer system?
Or how about when you open your e-mailbox and receive those "hot teens!" spam and you're mistaken for a pedophile because you "downloaded child porn" thanks to the attached jpeg?
There are plenty of silly, stupid and broad laws on the books
I won't even bother to comprehend how many silly, stupid and broad laws there are. Check out some of your state's dumb laws [nyud.net] (DumbLaws.com coral cached) and discover your true criminal identity.
And lets not forget about the growing issue of computer crimes created by politicians who have been bought or simply don't understand. If the RIAA/MPAA gets its way, it'll soon be illegal to put a DVD in your computer or record your favorite movie aired on TV to watch later.
... anyway
My point is that you are mistaken to think that you have nothing to worry about if you've supposedly done nothing wrong.
First, everyone in this country has probably broken or will eventually break a law or two unknowingly or willingly. And secondly, history has proven that whoever has the power to monitor the people will undoubtably abuse that power according to their beliefs and to their advantage -- whether it's in public locations or in the privacy of your own home.
An alternative (Score:5, Interesting)
This idea is constitutional and is permitted by US constitution in that the the citizens have a right to monitor the government.
As far as am concerned, THAT is a true use of my money. I get to exactly note how my money is spent.
What do you say Mr.Policeman?
Re:reality (Score:5, Interesting)
I had a crack in the engine block of my old 1989 Toyota Celica. The car was beaten up, and wouldn't accelerate quickly. In city traffic, I had a hard time breaking 35 miles an hour. I didn't want to invest any more money in the car, and so let it die peacefully of old age while looking around at Camaros.
I was driving around in Maryland, I forget the name of the town, and there's a stretch of road, that goes something like 35 to 25 to 35 again, in a stretch of only a couple blocks. There's an old, closed gas station, there. I'm driving in to work one morning on a business trip that had me commuting from Waldorf to Lexington Park. Driving... not fast, since my car couldn't, at this time, go fast.
So, a police officer, no lie... walks out in front of my car, holds his hand up, and stops me, waves me in to the gas station, and writes me a speeding ticket, 19 miles per hour over so I don't have to show up in court. I go, "but officer, I can't have been speeding," (and to this day, I know that I can't have been), and he just gives me this sharp tone that says he's going to make it a lot worse on me if I don't just pay the fine. I paid it, driving another 200 miles to fight the ticket didn't sound like it made an ouce of sense.
Essentially, according to him, he walked out in front of a vehicle going 45 miles per hour in order to pull it over. Additionally, my vehicle that was highly unlikely to be going 45 miles per hour at all in stop and go traffic would have had to have been going that fast less than a half-mile or so in front of where he decide to slowly walk out in front of my car in order to bring it to a stop.
My guess is, since there were 3 other police cars pulled in at the same gas station, all writing tickets for other cars, that this is a common offense in that town.
Creating a culture that lets the scum rise (Score:3, Interesting)
Where does it end up? History shows some examples.
Re:An alternative (Score:1, Interesting)
In that case, you had better install cameras at the local donut shop and brothel, too.
Cops removed from reality (Score:5, Interesting)
A great deal of police think that if you were clocked at 45, you were going 45 and you are just lying. There's this attitude that if you were pulled over or arrested, you are guilty (even before trial). If not, that would mean the police are wrong (oh my, god forbid that!).
What happened to you is actually a common police tactic. Not ticketing you for the primary accused charge, but some made up lesser charge (seat belt, tail light, reduced speeding ticket). Most people won't fight it because they are scared if they get in court the officer might bring up the original charge and have a huge ticket. Guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it. Which is sad, because a lot of people pay for tickets they should fight because they are scared. The police are very aware of this and use it as a common tactic to make a ticket stick.
And that's the sad state of many police departments in the united states. Making the world safe and fair for us by upholding the law is only about 10% of their motivation anymore. Revenue and power through selective accusations seems to really trump that these days.
I can't even tell you how many times I've seen the police flick on their lights just to run a red light. Or let off their friends when they pull them over. The clincher? I'm at a crowded restaurant one night (30 minute wait time). Cop walks in with two chicks, looks at the line. Walks right past everyone and finds a recently vacant table. Asks them to clean it and sits right down. And no one said anything because he was a cop. That really sums up their attitude right there.
Re:I work with law enforcement... (Score:2, Interesting)
Said policeman told me of a criminal that he had planted evidence on.
I said: "You fitted this person up?"
"No, no," He says, "We don't fit innocent people up."
Re:Cops removed from reality (Score:5, Interesting)
assholes people who need assistance must deal with (Score:2, Interesting)
That's not the only incident where officers decided what happened before responding, when my brother, who'd had a stroke recently, got hit while riding his bicycle, responding officers mocked him and accused him of being stoned because he couldn't adequately describe the car that hit him. Things didn't change even after I explained his condition to them. I told them to leave, at which point I became the bad guy.
That Houston cop is so full of shit that his eyes must be brown (disregarding genetic predilection).
Re:Big Brothers, Big Sisters (Score:3, Interesting)
While I agree with the rest of your post, I don't think anyone has a reasonble right to privacy while out in public. The fact that your city abuses it in such a retarded way notwithstanding, cameras in public I have no problem with. Privacy in public makes no sense, and unless it's being abused (which, in your case, it is), I would have no complaints.
Don't forget a live feed from (Score:3, Interesting)
Live streaming of in-car audio and all police radio transmissions could be next.
Re:An alternative (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Big Brothers, Big Sisters (Score:3, Interesting)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5366552 067462745475
Their argument is that 55 is too slow and ought to be raised. However, even if the speed limit is left at 55mph, it should be enforced as such. Driving 80 (basically 5mph over the speed of traffic) can currently result in a 25-over ticket.
Security, or illusion? (Score:2, Interesting)
Case in point - where I used to work a very nice multiprocessor desktop machine was "liberated" by someone over the Christmas break a few years back. We had loads of security cameras, including hidden ones, but the machine still went missing. I asked security to check the tapes and find out who stole it. Their reply - "no". Apparently it takes too long to look through the footage, so it's not cost effective. Two weeks of recordings, twenty cameras, no chance. Of course I actually think one of them stole it anyway, so that might be the real reason
Security cameras provide the illusion of security to some - but if no-one watches the output, they may as well not be there.
Unfortunately the only people with enough manpower to watch cameras are exactly the people I'd rather not have watching me... Like that police chief.
Cameras on us versus cameras on the cops (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:See it from the police (station) perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cops removed from reality (Score:3, Interesting)
This became so irritating, that he had one of his cars modified so it was physically impossible to go more than 5 mph under the speed limit in that area.
Sure, enough, he gets ticketed after about a month. He goes to court. The (same) judge gets real mad at seeing this "troublemaker" again. He presents his evidence, and reluctantly, the judge dismisses the case.
He then files suit against the officer, police department, and anyone else he can think to name, in a massive harassment suit.
He wins.
Of course, as these things go, the cop gets fired, a new one hired, and the corrupt department gets its fines... except from him. They know to leave him alone.
Ya know, I'm a foreigner in the U.S. working toward getting my green card. I have to keep my nose clean -- what might be a misdemeanor for a citizen can be a felony for me in an immigration court (there is a whole separate court system for non-citizens related to their immigration status), and that can get me deported. Why not extend the idea to law-enforcement officers, and politicians?
If I break the law, I get deported. Let Soviet Canuckistan deal with me.
If a citizen robs a store, he gets a fine and maybe jail time.
If a cop breakes the law, they get death.
If a politician breaks the law, they get a life of hard labor.
"But, then we'd have no cops or government!" I hear y'all cry.
No, we'd have honest cops, and honest government. Less of each, to be sure, but I rather think that would be a good thing.
Re:See it from the police (station) perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
Its ridiculous to assume any human being can be without bias. So the key here is FULL DISCLOSURE, not attempting to sound unbiased. Most European press have figured this out. They openly declare support for this candidate or that, so its pretty obvious who's side they are on. THey present the story in their fashion, and you know what you are getting. The opposite side presents in their fasion, and you know what you get. You get both sides, including the bias, and becuase you know who is biased in what way, you come out better.
We here in the US seem to believe that press MUST be fact only, and thats stupid. A better idea would be to expect, demand, require press organizations to disclose their ideas and beliefs, and we can proceed accordingly. Otherwise, places like Fox news present biased reports but claim to be "just reporting the facts".
Many already beat me to it...... (Score:3, Interesting)
People in general, are not so honest. Being a police officer is NOT an excuse or and exception to the facts.
I can think of a whole lot of situations that would open up a risk factor for cameras invading police departments, politicians and really anybody.
A country willing to sacrifice freedom in exchange for security, shall have neither nor deserve neither.
Ben Franklin and Rosevelt got it, how come the current administration doesn't?
Maybe they need a test run of these cameras on police and politicians....in order to learn why thats the way it works in reality.
Mom Arm (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, I feel seat belt regulations for drivers should be in force only if it can be shown that driving without one endangers people OUTSIDE the car (including other drivers). Same for adult passengers. I have no problem with campaigns pointing out that it's stupid as all fuck NOT to wear one in all but the most exceptional of circumstances, but it shouldn't be mandatory.
The world would be far better off if everyone had rudimentary risk-management skills, instead of relying on Big Brother to do it for them. It (along with money management) should be taught in school in any system where there is more than "the three R's" going on. Don't just tell kids "do this because we say so" -- show them WHY you say so. Then they (like any rational people) will have an inclination to do as you asked, not because you said so, but because they agree with you. Sure you can't do this from the start, a baby just isn't going to understand statistics. It is also no substitute for having a locked cabinet or a gun safe. But it does reduce the need to watch over them 24/7... if they understand the WHY behind the rules.
Mal-2
Re:wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is more than a single picture [abovetopsecret.com]
It also includes a really grainy picture of what could be a 757. The picture doesn't show it is a plane, it only shows that it could be one, contrary to conspiracy theorists claims that its too small.
On the subject of conspiracy theories, another good one is the theory that the "no plane at the pentagon" and the "pods on planes in NYC" are actually on government controlled websites to descredit the more moderate theories. You'll notice that whenever anybody asks a question like "Why did the president say that he saw footage of the first WTC impact on the school television before entering the classroom, when in fact there was no television and that footage was not discovered and aired until long after" or "Why were escorts not ordered when contact was lost with the pilots, as is standard practice as can be seen in other instances where contact was lost? Was an order issued to disregard procedure? Was it a simple mistake?", or "Why was it stated that the intercepting pilots were not authorized to shoot down, and that only the VP or president can issue the order, when in fact standard orders authorize pilots to shoot down hijacked planes that may pose a threat at their discression or the discression of their superiors?", that instead of answering the questions, the person giving the press conference, or giving the interview, or whatever, will simple say "Hahahaha, you're one of those conspiracy theorists who thinks there were no planes, that the planes were crashed into the ocean and then missiles hit the pentagon!" and then everybody laughs and there is no answer. This evasion is what gives this theory its momentum.
I have seen claims that several of these conspiracy websites that say there were no planes, have domains registered to PR companies employed by the Whitehouse and/or the Republican party. They then say that shortly after this was noticed all of the DNS entry was blanked (Which is illegal isn't it?) This sounds really solid until you realise how easy it is to fake a screenshot of the DNS entry before it was Orwellised. I could quite easily post a link to a conspiracy website that doesn't exsist, with a claim that the DNS entry is registered to an employee of some subsidiary of Manchurian Global or whoever, and lists their work phone#, easily verifiable using their employee list on their own website. Then a few hours later when people say that's not true, and the website doesn't exist, and there is no such domain, I'd say "God damnit, you didn't look fast enough, it was there, they must have agent on /. who saw their cover blown and deleted the DNS entry." Then maybe I'd get a few sockpuppet accounts and/or AC posting to say "Yeah, I saw it right before Homeland Security took it down!" Boom, instant proof! Why would I lie, and why would these other people back me up? Lesson: Be very hesitant to accept a claim that some website said something, then the government erased it, no matter how many "different" people back the OP up. I have, however, seen proof via google cash that a news website ran an article that they then deleted, so its not all faked ;)
At any rate, there are many explanations for why the tapes havn't been made public.
Re:Big Brothers, Big Sisters (Score:3, Interesting)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-53665520
Re:unreal (Score:1, Interesting)
The bank on the *same block* of the city police station (and kitty-corner from the sheriff's office) was robbed in '98, and the guy actually got away on a BMX bike riding down Main St - It took the police 2hrs to respond to the alarm, and as of 2006, the guy hasn't been caught (Gee, I bet they're just closin' in on him though!).
Two hispanic men were found dead from gunshot wounds (in the back, no less) floating in the irrigation canal behind the HS in the summer of '97... Was marked "unsolved" less than 6hrs after the bodies were found, and no further investigation was done. Sure, it's a small, predominantly Caucasian town with the primary industries being lumber mills, farming, and ranching... but that doesn't mean they're a bunch of racist, inbred, backwoods f*tards... does it? *coughSarcasmcough*
And my favorite... A California man was shot in the head while horseriding through the forest outside of town - one of the local "big names" was bragging about it in the bar the next day, giving all sorts of details. The whole town pretty much knows he did it, including several officers and at least 3 of the 4 city/county judges who are "friends of the family" (feel free to insert as much innuendo as you wish), but he was never even brought in for questioning. Hell, the bastard still brags about it whenever he gets drunk (i.e. a few times a week), and 6+ years later, he still thinks it's funnier than hell.
I've got dozens of similar stories, and yes - I'm posting anonymously for a reason. My point is, I've lost damn near all respect for law enforcement these days for several reasons (mainly invloving OR, WA, and ID state and city officers). From my personal experience, these occurences are the rule, not the exception. Too many cops with school bully mentalities, and not nearly enough oversight. Sure, I'm a law abiding citizen... but it's more because I'm afraid of crossing the "Good Ol' Boys" club.
For me, dealing with the police is the equivalent of dealing with the mafia - plenty of power to get things done, but it's gonna cost you in the long run, and you better know how to curry favor. I'm usually better off taking the loss, rather than putting myself on the cops' radar screen. I found that out in HS after a single officer gave me 6 speeding tickets in under 9mo, all for under 5mph over the limit (ever get a $175 ticket for 31mph in a 30mph zone?) - when I complained about targetting and harrassment in court, the judge laughed at me and doubled the fine. Every time I drive through town now, I have a police tail... plus, I get pulled over for anything from squeaky brakes to "irregular driving" (which has included "turning too sharply", "accelerating too quickly", and "braking too suddenly").
Sure, I know some very cool officers... but the vast majority are pricks with an inferiority complex - those who were bullies in school and couldn't think of any other way to keep pushing people around after graduation. I've even had several friends on the police force who've said that for the vast majority of cops; if they weren't officers, they'd be the criminals. The only way I like "law enforcement" is when I don't have to deal w/ 'em.
Re:Mom Arm (Score:3, Interesting)
I say, if my fellow 2-wheelers want to skip the helmet and go pavement surfing, then let them. If they want to be idiots, thats fine - they just have to deal with the cost. Hell, I signed a paper for my ins. co. saying that if I got into an accident w/out a helmet, then I'm not covered. I also always wear a helmet. Personally, I'd like to see similar discounts for wearing body armor - you wear it, you get a discount. You get into an accident w/out it, then you owe back payments (plus interest) on the higher premium. Between training, experience, and safety equipment, I'm probably one of the safest riders around - but I still pay $180/mo because I ride a sport bike, even though I have 0 tickets, 0 accidents, and always wear full body armor (yes, even in 100+ degree weather). As far as I can tell, helmet laws are either one more way to collect revenue from fines, or to attempt to protect idiots from themselves. I just wish there was less reliance on laws (esp. the "absolute letter of the law"), and more on personal accountability... but looking around at modern society, I doubt that'll happen any time soon.